What happens when an island Premier tries to get a small pittance of what he's owed from his own land?
Why, sue him!
Under NAFTA's "arbitration process" (remember when that phrase used to mean, "you're screwed"?).
Sep 27, 2007 10:48 AM
THE CANADIAN PRESS
CORNER BROOK, N.L. – U.S. oil giants ExxonMobil and Murphy Oil are accusing Ottawa of breaching the North American Free Trade Agreement by allowing Newfoundland to require them to spend millions of dollars on research in the province.
The two companies plan to sue the federal government, alleging it violated a previous NAFTA agreement when a provincial-federal agency adopted a new guideline on research and development in November 2004.
In notices of intent filed last month, ExxonMobil and Murphy Oil say the new regulation would cost them $40 million and $10 million, respectively, regardless of the commercial need for such investment or of the resources in place to sustain it.
The companies call the guideline "restrictive" as it specifies a fixed amount of money to be invested, and cite the Newfoundland and Labrador government's push for more revenues from the offshore oil industry.
Now, what Newfoundland has done(1) is quite laughable actually, compared to what it deserves and what is the "going rate" at this time; 75% of oil companies are nationally owned (2). I actually rolled by eyes at the small pittance that Premier Williams strutted out to the media, that 5% oil stake and some other concessions. I mean really, when the real powers over the world are The New Seven Sisters, Saudi Aramco, Russia’s Gazprom, CNPC of China, NIOC of Iran, Venezuela’s PDVSA, Brazil’s Petrobras and Petronas of Malaysia, (not to be confused with the old Seven Sisters, aka Exxon and ilk), it's outrageous that a foreign company should have the right to dictate to a province what it can do with it's own land; and make no mistake, this is Crown-owned land, owned by the Queen of Canada.
Canada had a 100% nationalized energy company once upon a time called Petro-Canada (or see this history page, that had national preference in the 1980s, as well as a National Energy Program, that of course is now defunct (Canada imports more oil than it exports in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, has no east-west cross-country power or energy system, and oil exports are locked at ~60% due to NAFTA's energy clause which Mexico thoughtfully rejected, see Easterners could freeze in the dark and The SPP's prospects are iffy with leaders short on political capital). It's just another privatized company now, and the oil industry in Canada is mostly foreign-owned. This is in stark comparison to Mexico's PEMEX and every other country in the world.
I think Danny Williams probably wishes Petro-Canada was here right now, because he wouldn't have to play ball with these scum-suckers.
That's what I call liability. NAFTA is a liability to all three countries' ability to govern.
Of course all that ended when Canada signed the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA. It might have even been the 'leverage' that Canada used to get a free trade agreement; "sign this...pretty please...and we'll never exercise our sovereignty again".
I don't really know what to say other than NAFTA has done irreparable harm to all three countries. In Mexico, it was the sudden inlet of subsidized imported farm goods that drove Mexican farmers out of business and brought in Cargill, displacing hundreds. In the meantime, wages have stagnated for the middle class in Canada and the United States.(3) There's some Mexican billionares though, which I guess counts as success! Of course, this "success" must now be replicated...throughout Peru, Colombia, etc.
OTHER TOPICS: Dems just passed another free trade bill in committee, knowing they were breaking their promises while doing so. (from David Sirota) Dem Leadership Rolls "Over the Dead Bodies" Of Its Rank-and-File
"A trade pact between the United States and Peru won bipartisan support in a crucial Congressional committee Tuesday...The vote Tuesday was a victory for the Bush administration and Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the Ways and Means panel. Mr. Rangel argued, against the opposition of many Democrats...[Ways and Means Committee Chair Charles Rangel (D-NY)] noted that he may not be able to win over most of his party, adding, 'Our membership on this committee means that we will have to do things that at times will not be as popular as we would like them to be.'
Democrats regained control of Congress last year after a campaign in which many candidates promised to block future trade deals...While many rank-and-file Democrats fear that trade deals erode American jobs, Democratic leaders have developed close ties with Wall Street and with many high technology and industrial companies...
Critics of the deal say that it represents an extension of Nafta...Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch division of Public Citizen, assailed the Peru vote as bad policy and politics. 'This is especially incomprehensible,' she said, 'after many of the freshman Democrats, who tipped the balance of power in Congress, were elected by focusing on ending more-of-the-same trade policies.'"
Notice that this Rangel admits he is passing the deal over the objections (ie. "over the dead bodies") of his own party. Notice too that he added that ramming the deal through the committee over the objections of rank-and-file populist Democrats represents "a very special day in my legislative career."
(replace "TILMA" for "NAFTA" as you please, same thing, but interprovincially, and it's even more scary and dangerous, as well as completely unnecessary and whose very existence based on 100% flawed data)